Email Us Forum Mail Article Print Article

WC points system flawed

Friday, February 28 2003

The time has come for the ICC to abandon its current point system in the World Cup and institute one that won’t leave a team’s fate to rain. Indeed, there are times when we have to accept whatever mother nature dishes out. Fortunately, however, there is a fair, sound and equitable way to ensure that rain does not preclude the best from moving forward in the World Cup competition.

A simple and practical system for the competition would be to do away with points altogether and determine which teams move forward by their win/loss percentage after each round. For example, in the first round in the current pool 'B' table as of today, Kenya would have a 75% winning percentage with their three wins and one loss, Sri Lanka would also have a 75% winning percentage, the West Indies would have a 67% record with their two wins and one loss and South Africa would have a 50% record with two wins and two losses. The rained out game between the West Indies and Bangladesh simply would not count.

Rained out games should not count because the “playing field” is not level since all the teams in a given pool do not play on the same day, and neither do they play in the same city and are therefore not subject to the same weather conditions. To say that’s just the way things are is not a sound argument. The team that plays the best cricket should make it to the next round; not the team that is luckiest with the weather. There is simply too much at stake with regards to financial rewards and cricketing pride when a team moves into the Super Six for this solvable problem not to be addressed.

Since it’s impractical for all the games to be played in the same city on the same day, all the ICC needs to do is not to consider rained out games at all. That is, consider the game abandoned and award no points. Everything will be computed based on the number of games you have won versus the number you have lost.

All the current tie breakers could still stay in place. Additionally, the Duckworth-Lewis system, though not perfect, could still stay in place for a game that was affected by rain but had enough overs bowled to make it official. If, therefore, Kenya, Sri Lanka, W.I. and South Africa were to tie on their winning percentages at the end of the first round, head to head match-ups and net run rate could still be applied as they are now.

The merit of the win/loss percentage system cannot be challenged on the basis that it is left to chance or is unfair to any one team. All it does is ensures that only the most successful among the competitors survive and move on to the next level. The current system of giving teams two points for rained out games can be unfair to teams simply by virtue of where or when they are scheduled to play. The awarding of such points can only be helpful to underachievers or those who do not deserve to move on to the next round.

Let us look at two very possible scenarios using the current points system. As of today, South Africa has eight points and the West Indies 10. If the West Indies beat Sri Lanka and are rained out against Kenya, they will end up with 16 points. Since South Africa plays on a different day, they could go unaffected by rain and win their next two games and end up with 16 points as well. They would then move on ahead of the West Indies, based on their net run rate, although they lost two games and even though one of the losses was to the West Indies, who lost only one game throughout.

At the end of the first round, using the new winning percentage system, the West Indies would have won three games and lost one for a winning percentage of 75%, while South Africa would have won four and lost two for a winning percentage of 67%. There would thus be no need for a net run rate tiebreaker and the team that has performed better on the field would move on.

Unless the factor of rain is removed from the points table, staging the World Cup in the Caribbean in 2007 can become a rather contentious issue especially for games that are scheduled in Guyana. With its rich cricket tradition, Guyana must be factored favourably in the hosting of games. At the same time, strong contenders in the World Cup could make a solid argument that the probability of it raining at Bourda during their game against a “minnow” is so high that it is unfair to them if another strong contender has its “minnow game” scheduled at another venue in the Caribbean where rain is less likely.

There are those who would say that rain is an integral part of cricket. To that I say, it does not have to be so in the World Cup. The World Cup is not traditional cricket as we know it. Let us not forget those who questioned the wisdom of one-day limited overs cricket when it was first introduced in 1972. The argument, then, was that such change would compromise the proud tradition of the longer version.

But let us look at cricket now. Just 30 short years after the first ODI, we are playing our 7th World Cup, using the revolutionary limited-overs format. Without this format, there is no way that a Cricket World Cup could have attracted enough sponsorship to guarantee each test playing nation US$6.5 million. Like that change, instituting a change in the points system will also help cricket.

Cricket may never become a game that is played under a covered dome. Therefore, we are all prepared to live with a game not being played on a given day because of rain. What I refuse to continue accepting, however, is that a deserving team should have its drive to the finals thwarted, not because of how poorly it has played, but where and when it is scheduled to play.

Change for the sake of changing is never good. Change in the interest of fairness, to reward the deserving and to make things better should always be desirable. The ICC owes it to its cricketers, its fans and indeed its sponsors to do everything in its powers to ensure that the best and most deserving teams make it to the final round of its flagship competition. To leave so much to chance when the solution is so simple is tantamount to failing in its responsibilities.

The ICC need not be dogmatic about abandoning its policy of awarding points for rained out games. Winning percentage is a system that should be implemented well before the next World Cup.


Posted by Orin